The Allam Cycle is integrated 100% carbon capture and storage (CCS) that leverages the advantages of the Brayton Cycle for sc-CO2 that is the goal of FE's LFTR PCS. The NET Power Toshiba turbine will begin spinning for Exelon next year. Given it's success, this will have big implications for energy technology policy. Comments?

_________________"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

CCS is likely to be much less important in the new administration. It was always technically dubious to begin with. As much as I like the sCO2 cycle I don't think it will be able to compete in the combustion arena is the requirement of CCS is stripped away. I think the future of sCO2 gas turbine technology is coupled to LFTRs.

Thank you, Kirk, for your perspective on this. This Allam Cycle machine is pretty cool, though. I thought you were an advocate of CCS, yes? This Allam Cycle plant uses the CO2 output for the working substance. It has a smaller footprint and is clean. I think it's impressive technology.

_________________"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

Kirk, and what about all the carbon-based assets and jobs and their loss when nuclear begins to ramp up? CCS is driven by a belief in climate change. Please repeat your position here. Is it a hoax in your view as Holger insists?

_________________"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

I think that it's a wonderful breakthrough because it means that MSR enthusiasts won't have to wait until DOE finishes its interminable "study" of that sort of turbine before they can claim that they/we ought to get 50% heat-to-electricity conversion http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-content/ ... 211091.pdf. As far as its immediate application is concerned I feel that it's also good because it addresses an important problem & shouldn't cost too much (my ball park calc suggests that running its attendant air separation plant would consume about 4% of the power produced). We're going to continue to burn lots of "natural" gas in the future & this seems to be the best way to do it.

I recall also seeing some calculation that show it to also be a waste of energy and money.

I wish I could recall more of the article so that I could find it again and link to it. The case was made by calculating the energy it would take to sequester the CO2 versus not burning the fuel to begin with, as in expending the time/energy/effort/money on improving efficiency. I will note that the case was made by using a lot of worst case scenarios but it did at least point out to me that the energy needed for CCS is not trivial.

One thing that concerns me but is almost never brought up is what happens in the case of a CO2 leak? I'm not so concerned about a slow leak subverting the CCS efforts as much as a large leak displacing the oxygen in a populated area. Such events occur naturally once in a great while but if we are going to make a habit of intentionally creating high concentrations of CO2 then we need to be prepared for a catastrophic failure of the system and massive release of a dense, invisible, odorless, and suffocating gas.

For people that fear CO2 release so much it seems irrational to me for those same people to support CCS.

_________________Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.

I think that it's a wonderful breakthrough because it means that MSR enthusiasts won't have to wait until DOE finishes its interminable "study" of that sort of turbine before they can claim that they/we ought to get 50% heat-to-electricity conversion

S/CO2 running with a MSR wouldn't be getting 1100 C at the turbine inlet, more like 600, to start with anyway. So efficiency would be lower, but the needs for cooling the turbine blades and so on would be way less problematic.

I think that it's a wonderful breakthrough because it means that MSR enthusiasts won't have to wait until DOE finishes its interminable "study" of that sort of turbine before they can claim that they/we ought to get 50% heat-to-electricity conversion.

Late last month the Department of Energy awarded $80 million for a 10 MW, six-year pilot project that will test supercritical CO2’s use in gas turbines to improve efficiency. The Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) and General Electric Global Research will manage the $110 million project.

NET Power/Exelon will have their mac-daddy 500 MWt/265 MWe running in 2020 two years before the end of this "six-year pilot study" consistent with free market principles.

Where's the will to get a job done? I want Donald Trump to succeed. Let him fully understand Kirk's LFTR and cash in on thorium before the Russians. President Putin . . .

Russia’s president Vladimir Putin has asked state nuclear corporation Rosatom and the Kurchatov Institute national research centre to prepare a proposal by 1 March 2017 on the prospects for using thorium for nuclear fuel, the Kremlin website said.

. . . so let the Russians outperform their BN800 and BN1200 with a TMSR.

Kirk has insisted on scCO2 in his PCS to mature beyond steam—isn't that a legit point in looking at this first-of-its-kind Toshiba turbine? Jon noted the lower LFTR temp cuts into efficiency but Kirk's PCS will be an order of magnitude smaller than a steam turbine.

darryl siemer wrote:

As far as its immediate application is concerned I feel that it's also good because it addresses an important problem & shouldn't cost too much (my ball park calc suggests that running its attendant air separation plant would consume about 4% of the power produced). We're going to continue to burn lots of "natural" gas in the future & this seems to be the best way to do it.

The best way because it is 100% carbon capture integrated into the machine. NET Power has a version for coal. And I was hoping Kirk would have written your positive point here, Darryl. The natural—landfill gas is not natural?—gas edge will vanish once the FE LFTR is built and running where the superiority of that energy technology will become clear.

Keeping GHG out of the atmosphere is the majority consensus. The NET Power Allam Cycle achieves that without loss of NG-coal-derived grid power. Hundreds of years from now, eventually fossil carbon will grow scarce and by then fusion-derived power will probably mature. Where's the incentive to use thorium for energy in the fluid molten salt design with the mind set of this generation?

_________________"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

Carbon dioxide turbines having real performance data in the bank can't do anything but help us, and humanity more generally.It makes me wonder if its not worth taking another look at a pressure tube, carbon dioxide cooled, heavy water reactor.

'It makes me wonder if its not worth taking another look at a pressure tube, carbon dioxide cooled, heavy water reactor'After the Swiss one and the Czech one both melted down, you might struggle to get funding. More than the average nuke startup, I mean.

'It makes me wonder if its not worth taking another look at a pressure tube, carbon dioxide cooled, heavy water reactor'After the Swiss one and the Czech one both melted down, you might struggle to get funding. More than the average nuke startup, I mean.

The French one worked fine though! So its all square on that front I think.

Carbon dioxide turbines having real performance data in the bank can't do anything but help us, and humanity more generally.It makes me wonder if its not worth taking another look at a pressure tube, carbon dioxide cooled, heavy water reactor.

Thanks, E, for the positive comment. HWRs are for natural uranium and not thorium. This is the energy from thorium forum. CANDUs are running and TMSRs have never been built beyond the ORNL MSRE.

Is climate change a hoax in your view? NET Power's Allam Cycle here is 100% CCS so clearly the design is to err on the side of GHGs and climate change.

_________________"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

Thanks, E, for the positive comment. HWRs are for natural uranium and not thorium. This is the energy from thorium forum. CANDUs are running and TMSRs have never been built beyond the ORNL MSRE.

The advantage of HWRs is that they can run on almost anything with relatively minor modifications - I had an email conversation with someone at CNL Chalk River about the possibilities for modifications to the CANDU to better enable a Thorium or mixed cycle. If necessary you could push uranium use way down and generate most of the enemy from thorium fission.

Tim Meyer wrote:

Is climate change a hoax in your view? NET Power's Allam Cycle here is 100% CCS so clearly the design is to err on the side of GHGs and climate change.

My physics education (that is nearing completion) leads me to believe that it is probably not a hoax, the physical effects behind the greenhouse effect are well known - however I have now come to the conclusion that it is much too late to do anything meaningful to stop the effect. Maybe if we were where we are now 20 years ago we could have done something, but we can't now. Just too little room to maneuvre and too little time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum